Has anyone bought a new fabia vrs after owning the old vrs? What do you think and what differences have you noticed??

How long do you want the reply?.....

We have a Fabia II vRS..I previously owned a Mk I Fabia vRS

Suspension is better, more grip and less body roll..It doesnt need a rear ARB

The engine is light years different as is the Gearbox

Interior wise its better ..more modern and better equipped, let down slightly by the fittings

Overall...A VAST improvement

Oh....Forgot...Performance is in a different league!!!

Premier instead of League 2

Economy is not brilliant and insurance costs are greater but not that bad when you reach our age!!

My wife pays about £330 a year fully comp and protected NCB

In the old vrs I'm paying 685 protected ncb as a 30yo man who has 8 years no claims! Still love the mark 1 vrs for the drive,

did you have the mark 1 chipped?? I have resisted the temptation so far as when I had the discussion with my wife that she couldn't boot it until the revs hit 2000 I got a blank look and I don't fancy buying a new clutch!

Do you still get that look from.bmw drivers as you overtake them? Thy is priceless

I should just book a test drive and see for myself!

I own both...well I will on Tuesday when my new RS arrives (other half will be getting the MkI and I'll have MkII)...then I'll comment.

Old vRS is a good car but it just cant be compared to the new one. It's like comparing an old gen Polo GT (PD 130) with a new Polo GTi. The games moved on somewhat since has to be said.

I will have to say that I dont think the Fabia vRS is quite as nice as the new Polo GTi but the Polo is unreasonably expensive and doesnt offer enough extra....well...anything to justify its price difference other than slighly higher grade materials and better looks. vRS was amzing value on the VAT deal but not 100% sure its available on it now.

I have done 80k in the old vRS, 5k now in the new one, agree with all the points Chris has made, but I have just done 107k in a grande punto sporting inbetween , so have to factor that in too

the new one does handle a world better than the mark 1, pleasingly resistant to understeer , but no better than the punto.

I may well have gone for the 180bhp abarth, but thats £15k, I paid £13k for the vRS.

not as well equipped as the punto, I really miss the blu & me ect, but hell its great value for money with the VAT offer, much as the original Mark I vRS was great value for money.

mostly its the performance... its in a different league.. really. if you drive one and think 'its not that quick' its just the "unfussy" delivery, its very quick. if I put it in perspective, one of my friends (in a 180bhp octy) was at a meet recently, and I've never been able to keep up with him in either my punto or my mark I vRS, I overtook him in the mark II... and not "just" it was out of a slow corner, and like he was stood still!

and you CAN get 47mpg I got (up to 50) but averaged 47 when following Davey at the recent borders meet

plus £125 to tax, and my insurance hasn't gone up.

to put it in perspective, its the first car I have bought, that I haven't thought, "this needs more power... remap time..."

i did a 120 mile round journey today, managed 42mpg. I dont think i could have driven any more reservedly. gentle acceleration and crusie control at all times,

It kind of worries me when you guys say the 180 bhp in a Mark 2 is a whole world better than the Mark 1. I have a Mark 1 which has been mapped to 182 bhp and feel it is quicker in many respects to my old very fast Peugeot 306 Rallye (bought many years ago with just 27k on the clock) which in turn had 167 bhp on tap with its six speed box but which was quite light and felt bloody quick. I would say go for a decent remap and you should feel a big difference. I would say it’s a more difficult call than some claim.

It kind of worries me when you guys say the 180 bhp in a Mark 2 is a whole world better than the Mark 1. I have a Mark 1 which has been mapped to 182 bhp and feel it is quicker in many respects to my old very fast Peugeot 306 Rallye (bought many years ago with just 27k on the clock) which in turn had 167 bhp on tap with its six speed box but which was quite light and felt bloody quick. I would say go for a decent remap and you should feel a big difference. I would say it’s a more difficult call than some claim.

I had a mk1 and had it chipped/remapped (by Angel Tuning they claimed 180bhp) The new one is an aweful lot quicker then my mapped Mk1. The new gear box gives the same relentless acceleration, but withought any effort or gaps from changing gear. I would put it on a par if not better than my old 172 Clio (its been a while subce I drove that one though)

Im 33, my insurance was 700 on the mk1, Direct line now want 1200. I live in liverpool, so not very good prices really. I can get it down to about 800 by shopping around.

To the OP I would say everyhthing is better with the new one, except ecconomy, and no low washer warning!

I drove 60k in the first one, and just over 2500 in the new one so far. I havnt seen another one on the road yet, and as I have replaced the badges, people dont seem to know what it is

I owned a Black magic mk1 and as many before me have commented, it really isn't a patch on the new one.

The main difference is the dsg gearbox ,that is what sets it apart. Plain and simple.

You really need to see for yourself.

You only have to look at the 'drag' from other cars when they attempt to accelerate with you.

The dsg gear changes are so fast, other drivers are surprised.

The negatives, I think the wheel design is poor ( and this is because I have scuffed it when I wouldn't have done on the mark 1! ). The interior bonnet catch is poor ( I have already had one replaced, apparently they go all the time on octavias! )

Absence of a locking fuel flap is just downright stingey!

But, despite these 'small' negatives, anyone prepared to write off the mark 2 must think again, they would be making a massive mistake!

Edited 3 April, 201115 yr by bingo765

It kind of worries me when you guys say the 180 bhp in a Mark 2 is a whole world better than the Mark 1. I have a Mark 1 which has been mapped to 182 bhp and feel it is quicker in many respects to my old very fast Peugeot 306 Rallye (bought many years ago with just 27k on the clock) which in turn had 167 bhp on tap with its six speed box but which was quite light and felt bloody quick. I would say go for a decent remap and you should feel a big difference. I would say it’s a more difficult call than some claim.

you are not factoring in the gearbox..... just the power the gearbox makes a massive difference...

I had a mk1 and had it chipped/remapped (by Angel Tuning they claimed 180bhp) The new one is an aweful lot quicker then my mapped Mk1. The new gear box gives the same relentless acceleration, but withought any effort or gaps from changing gear. I would put it on a par if not better than my old 172 Clio (its been a while subce I drove that one though)

Im 33, my insurance was 700 on the mk1, Direct line now want 1200. I live in liverpool, so not very good prices really. I can get it down to about 800 by shopping around.

To the OP I would say everyhthing is better with the new one, except ecconomy, and no low washer warning!

I drove 60k in the first one, and just over 2500 in the new one so far. I havnt seen another one on the road yet, and as I have replaced the badges, people dont seem to know what it is

EVO magazine tested a polo GTI against the clio 200 (and the mini cooper works and VXR corsa) and it beat all them to 60, and to 100 and in the 1/4 mile

i did a 120 mile round journey today, managed 42mpg. I dont think i could have driven any more reservedly. gentle acceleration and crusie control at all times,

how many miles (on your car) to get 42? I'm up to 5,000 now.... I couldn't get above 35 in the early stages, its improving all the time, (like I said, and 'easy' 47 at the borders meet) hope it improves more!

bloody scary what you lot pay for insurance, im 40 and had the mk1 for 7 years and never paid over £200 protected ncb, you guys did something bad in a previous life or what???

im looking forward to my mk2 but only because this mk1 is getting on abit now, but i WILL miss it theres no doubt about that, i just want something newer and more modern and the mk2 fits that bill but going by the test drive i didnt find it worlds apart in performance although i love the dsg as its just so simple to drive

i will miss my little furby and i just hope the new one lives up to my high expectations

how many miles (on your car) to get 42? I'm up to 5,000 now.... I couldn't get above 35 in the early stages, its improving all the time, (like I said, and 'easy' 47 at the borders meet) hope it improves more!

only about 400miles now. The last tankk i managed 27mpg lol 240 miles brim to empty. This tank ive covered 140 miles and it still thinks i have 225miles left in the tank

Edited 3 April, 201115 yr by janner_Sy

bloody scary what you lot pay for insurance, im 40 and had the mk1 for 7 years and never paid over £200 protected ncb, you guys did something bad in a previous life or what???

im looking forward to my mk2 but only because this mk1 is getting on abit now, but i WILL miss it theres no doubt about that, i just want something newer and more modern and the mk2 fits that bill but going by the test drive i didnt find it worlds apart in performance although i love the dsg as its just so simple to drive

i will miss my little furby and i just hope the new one lives up to my high expectations

It doesn't feel that quick, but it really is! I pay £360 for insurance (driving school insurance, any driver) So it aint too bad

only about 400miles now. The last tankk i managed 27mpg lol 240 miles brim to empty. This tank ive covered 140 miles and it still thinks i have 225miles left in the tank

lol... its a real jackel and hyde depending on how you drive it, the same meet I got 47mpg, Can joined us later and we had a bit of a "play" on the next section of the drive, and I got 28mpg! I have only done one tank to tank (well reserve to reserve, so not full tank capacity) and I got 370 miles.... it was a long motorway run.

For me, the big thing is the mk1 vrs was an almost unique proposition: a sporty frugal, quick (not fast), good looking well built hatch which was cheap to run and fun to drive. There was very little on the Market then to compare.

New vrs: no doubt it's faster, better built, better looking and all round a better car but at the end if the day it's another clone of the vag hot hatch package available from any of their brands. The vrs just happens to have a fabia body and the option of green paint. At least it still offers value for money.

I'm not saying it's a bad car vrs zealots - it's a great car but sadly it's no longer something a bit different.

the Mk1 vRS wasnt that different though, you could still get the ibiza/polo with the same engine etc and they both looked better as well.

Same engine yes, but not the same overall package. The seat was warm and the polo not really sporty at all.

As I say, not knocking the current vrs...

I dont blow the trumpet new vRS as much as many on here despite owning one, i think it lacks in quite a lot of areas. But the mk1 was crap. christ it only just managed to beat a N?A 1.6 115hp mini cooper. you dont get any more luke warm than that.

I had a spin in a mk1 furby vRS with a stage 1 map(cant remember which)expecting wanders from all the posts i had read. It was pants. Fuel economy is all it brought to the party, and had more body roll in the bends than a yacht in mid-tack in a force 7 gale

For me, the big thing is the mk1 vrs was an almost unique proposition: a sporty frugal, quick (not fast), good looking well built hatch which was cheap to run and fun to drive. There was very little on the Market then to compare.

New vrs: no doubt it's faster, better built, better looking and all round a better car but at the end if the day it's another clone of the vag hot hatch package available from any of their brands. The vrs just happens to have a fabia body and the option of green paint. At least it still offers value for money.

I'm not saying it's a bad car vrs zealots - it's a great car but sadly it's no longer something a bit different.

in effect the mark I vRS can still be available in Mark II form, buy a monte carlo (same suspension, nice looks /interior ect) with the 105 diesel, and map it to 130bhp.... you get same effect as the mark I vRS ... no?

Same engine yes, but not the same overall package. The seat was warm and the polo not really sporty at all.

As I say, not knocking the current vrs...

Dont agree, we had an early Ibiza 1.9 PD 130 Sport, mechanically it really was no different to the vRS. Other than 16" wheels, lower suspension and a set of sports seats and leather wheel it looked no different to a standard Ibiza but it did go like a rocket, had a real Q car thing going whereas the vRS shouted a bit too unnecessarily about its extra performance. I once suprised the hell out of a MK4 Golf 1.8T GTi, couldnt keep up with me in a straight line at all and I could tell he was trying, he looked gutted when I finally let him pass too!

All three cars had poor suspension and pretty bad brakes, was great in a straight line but as soon as you threw it into a corner you never really knew (with all the torque steer) if it would come out the other side, ride was also bone shattering.

Nearly bought a nearly new FR TDi to replace it but dealer wanted £12.5k for a 9 month old car...told him to go jump! Ended up with a 1.4 Polo instead, very boring but its been a good car all in all.

Janner...Ive never know anyone critisise their own car like you do!!

When are you selling it?

Sharkrider, that is exactly what I have done. Nearly ordered a diesel Audi A1 but Skoda launched the monte just in time.

Would have loved a vrs, but u do 36,000 miles a year

Janner...Ive never know anyone critisise their own car like you do!!

When are you selling it?

I think its actually quite refreshing that someone can be totally honest and detached from the rose tinted specs wearing. :yes:

Its not the first time